Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

[Mutazoia]

Take someone like Batman for example.

Barring some of his utterly impossible feats (because comics run on rule of kewl) he is often depicted as a normal human.

But, he is in the top .000001% when it comes to strength, fitness, agility, intelligence, education, wealth, determination, and natural talent.

No one in the real world has ever been as all around competent as Batman.

But he is still within the potential limits of a real world human. Does that count as "realistic" though?

In his early years, Batman was just a normal police detective, who happened to wear a cape. He wasn't any stronger, or faster, or better at martial arts than anybody else. He was just a really great detective...which is why Batman is still sometimes referred to as "The Detective". It wasn't until some years later, when he was re-branded as "Billionaire Bruce Wane, orphan out for revenge", that he became the near super human that we know today....

But all that is besides the point of the thread, lol

[Cazero]

If you're done, then all you've done is offer up a comic-book superpower explanation.

(This is literally some comic-book character's power, I just can't remember their name or which publisher they belong to.)

Well, it's changing some fundamental laws of the universe for the explicit purpose of allowing the kind of things that happen in comic books. What did you expect?
But I put more thought in it that you may think. None of your objections hold water.

How does this actually work?

You eat more, you have more mass. Extra density means extra internal pressure, wich means extra stronger living tissue to make up for it and naturally conclude with extra resilience. If you have the right diet and train properly, you also have stronger muscles and bones rather than just more fat. Thus, you can keep becoming stronger.

Have you looked into the ramifications of muscle and bone being that dense and what it might do to other parts of the body?

Obviously the rest of the body gain mass as well for the extra density and resilence required to survive muscle/bone pressure.

What does it imply or cause in the broader setting?

Well obvisouly superstrong living creatures are now possible, some exist, and there are a couple new industries designed to fill the new niche market they created. But other than that? Almost nothing.

Why aren't most people eating as much as they can, and therefore significantly stronger and tougher in comparison to the humans of our reality?

For the same reasons wild animals didn't outcompete humans by doing it and still aren't going anywhere near that : because it's a gigantic waste of ressources that can kill you when not done properly.
If you're not dedicated enough to proper physical exercises, you just gain more and more fat and the extra efforts required for every little move you do eventualy kill you of exhaustion. With the wrong diet, the body doesn't strenghten properly and you die.
Then who would do that? People who want to rise to the top and people who really want to punch through brick walls.

How does this change food production?

Barely. Food is in a state of massive surproduction. Just like in the real world.

With a nearly limitless demand for food, do the cultures in this world ever get to the point where there's surplus labor for things other than farming?

The demand for food barely changed. Neither did the production. The problem you envision simply doesn't happen.

Does this make food more valuable than gold?

Of course not. It doesn't mean there isn't money in the new big markets, but if you think food is in those you're sorely mistaken.
Hyperdensity materials and artificial nutritional supplements. Those are the new things needed to support the few world record holders who sink in dirt and can't survive on normal meat.

[lesser_minion]

Care to back up that assertion?

Think about trying to push someone while ice-skating. Once the loads you're working with are large enough -- which depends on how strong the walls, ceilings, floors, etc. are in your setting -- you need the ability to make other objects, such as the floor, or whatever you're holding up, super-strong by touch, while also selectively not doing that for anything you want to break. In other words, the power to strengthen (or lighten) other objects by willing them to be stronger (or lighter). That's either magic, or it's a direct equivalent.

I don't really care and don't see why I should be persuaded to care.

Yet you're contributing to a debate about what should be done for people who like a bit more attention paid to world-building. That's the entire point. This isn't about what 'must' be done for every single game, everywhere.

[Milo v3]

In other words, the power to strengthen (or lighten) other objects by willing them to be stronger (or lighter). That's either magic, or it's a direct equivalent.

Alternatively, the story is in a medium where that sort of thing is less important and is handwaved away by suspension of disbelief.

[lesser_minion]

Alternatively, the story is in a medium where that sort of thing is less important and is handwaved away

You are not describing a feature of the medium: only a feature of a particular style of game. Even then, the implications don't disappear just because you choose not to worry about them.

[Frozen_Feet]

I guess I am not following you then, I went back and read your post and the one you are quoting and it still seems like you are saying that people who want a realistically human character to keep up with impossible bad-asses have "ill-realized or conflicting desires".

You missed a few bits of context. First, Cluedrew's question was preceded by the statement that Fighters ought to be able to be fantasic or superhuman without being magic. I implicitly agree on this point. The question was why would someone resist this conclusion.

The post you quoted made no reference to people who can accept nominal humans achieving fantastic feats, becausr obviously such people have no reason to resist the conclusion.

The ill-realized or conflicting desires appear when something like the following happens: the player is poaying Batman. They conceptualize Batman as being capable of nothing a real human couldn't do. Batman gets in a boxing match with enraged Hulk. They conceptualize Hulk as being signficantly superhuman in speed, strength and durability.

So when Batman gets hit by Hulk and isn't cripplingly injured, a little demon on their shoulder starts howling. There are two ways to reconcile the scenario: either Batman has superhuman endurance (which cannot be based on his concept) or Hulk is signficantly holding back (which enraged Hulk has no reason to do). But the player does not want to accept either, because both Batman having superhuman endurance and the artistic convention of Hulk holding back would go against their realist conception of Batman. The situation could be resolved by toning Hulk down to levels manageable to a real human, but the player doesn't want to accept that either, because it would violate their conception of Hulk. The last option would be biting the bullet and having Batman be injured, but even that would feel unsatisfying to the player, because they still wanted a fair fight on some level.

You and your players would presumably allow at least one of the above concessions, thus avoiding conflict of interests. Either you'd be fine with Batman having superhuman endurance, or you'd be fine with Hulk holding back, or you'd be fine with toning Hulk down, or you'd be fine with Batman getting smashed. Again, it's not a problem with realist and speculative elements existing in the same game (magical realism, sci-fi and horror all are founded on this), it's the player's response to them which is the actual problem.

Also, like I said in the post you quoted: the amount of people with conflicting desires is smaller than people make it seem. It's more common for the conflict to exist between different individuals. A person who wants realist Batman and toned-down Hulk and a person who wants a fantastic Batman and really incredible Hulk are fine on their own, but they mix badly.

[Milo v3]

You are not describing a feature of the medium: only a feature of a particular style of game. Even then, the implications don't disappear just because you choose not to worry about them.

Superman isn't magic just because he can lift a bus with one hand. It'd be impossible if physics and biology worked the way it did in real life, in the comics all we Need is "He has super strength". Some settings might choose to provide more than that, but it isn't necessary to go into detail.

[Lord Raziere]

You are not describing a feature of the medium: only a feature of a particular style of game. Even then, the implications don't disappear just because you choose not to worry about them.

Ok, You want my honest advice for this sort of thing?

go into your head, find your nagging inner physicist and beat them brutally with a golf club until they beg for mercy and leave you have fun without needing to jump through meaningless worldbuilding hoops. your the one in control and make all the decisions. not whatever is telling you that you need to follow physics. people convinced themselves just because you put all this work into understanding physics and can apply this work to the game, that you "have" to apply it. that you "have" to hold yourself to it, because you invested so much into it, and can't recognize when to compartmentalize this, when to control yourself and recognize that just because its your interest, doesn't mean its always appropriate for the situation.

because currently the standard in this thread for "put a little more thought into wordbuilding" is "full physics dissertation about every single aspect of reality and how its different." thats ridiculous and no one should be held to that standard. thats strictly "going way above and beyond what is expected of a world-builder" levels of thought. a world-builder is only obligated to build as much as they need to, to make the world work they way they WANT for the focus they desire. Nothing more.

[Talakeal]

Think about trying to push someone while ice-skating. Once the loads you're working with are large enough -- which depends on how strong the walls, ceilings, floors, etc. are in your setting -- you need the ability to make other objects, such as the floor, or whatever you're holding up, super-strong by touch, while also selectively not doing that for anything you want to break. In other words, the power to strengthen (or lighten) other objects by willing them to be stronger (or lighter). That's either magic, or it's a direct equivalent.

I have to say, that is a very different place than I thought you were going with that.

So are you saying that it isn't the super-strength itself that necessitates magic but rather hand-waving away the realistic consequences of such?

[Mutazoia]

You are not describing a feature of the medium: only a feature of a particular style of game. Even then, the implications don't disappear just because you choose not to worry about them.

Sure, sure....we could get into a doctoral level thesis on xenobiology to explain why every cell in Superman's body is X times more dense than a human, and how that allows him to have super strength/speed, and follow it up with a doctoral level thesis on radiology to explain how the radiation from our sun affects his biochemistry in such a way as to allow him to focus his vision to the point where an apparent heat beam is generated....

But who would want to read all of that as a background to the story? Nobody. Not even Xenobiologists, Radiologist, and Biochemists. Because they are there to read, and be entertained by, a comic book about Superman, not do research on stuff that is pure bull**** in real life.

[Frozen_Feet]

The field of speculative fiction would be a lot smaller if there weren't a lot of people out there to whom science of the non-existent is entertainment. Just because it isn't for everybody doesn't mean it isn't for somebody! Come on!

[Mutazoia]

The field of speculative fiction would be a lot smaller if there weren't a lot of people out there to whom science of the non-existent is entertainment. Just because it isn't for everybody doesn't mean it isn't for somebody! Come on!

No...not really. Star Trek was a huge success long before anybody sat down and tried to work out the purpose of every little blinking light on the cardboard sets, long before anybody decided to try to work out the physics of warp drive....

Star Wars had millions of fans long before anybody tried to work out how to build a real lightsaber...

It was an entire generation before anybody figured out that an explosion strong enough to blast the moon out of Earths orbit, would actually destroy it, thus making Space 1999 completely impossible (let alone worked out the speeds the moon would need to be traveling through interstellar space to make each episode possible)

Sure, there are lots of fans who enjoy trying to figure out why what one character said on Star Trek, doesn't match the engineering display graphic that was shown for a whole 3 seconds in the background of one episode. More power to 'em, if they want to spend all that time rationalizing a work of fiction...if they get as much joy out of that as they do watching the episode, great. But they still watch the episode just to watch the episode, and break it down after the fact, mostly because they need to stay immersed in the show after it's aired.

But there are a lot more people who just watch Star Trek, just to watch Star Trek, and don't really care if Kirk pushes the same button for 87,200,63 separate independent functions, depending on what episode it is.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, it's changing some fundamental laws of the universe for the explicit purpose of allowing the kind of things that happen in comic books. What did you expect?

Ah, so you decided to change the context silently, from the fantasy-esque settings that had been under discussion to the "anything goes" modern-esque setting of comicbook superheroes, in order to lower the bar to the "Worldbuilding? What's worldbuilding?" level of said genre.

Right.

But I put more thought in it that you may think. None of your objections hold water.

I'm sure you think so.

You eat more, you have more mass. Extra density means extra internal pressure, wich means extra stronger living tissue to make up for it and naturally conclude with extra resilience. If you have the right diet and train properly, you also have stronger muscles and bones rather than just more fat. Thus, you can keep becoming stronger.

That's just restating the "what", it doesn't answer the "how".

Obviously the rest of the body gain mass as well for the extra density and resilence required to survive muscle/bone pressure.

What effects does that have? Other than just the convenient one of "allowing" your premise?

Well obvisouly superstrong living creatures are now possible, some exist, and there are a couple new industries designed to fill the new niche market they created. But other than that? Almost nothing.

For the same reasons wild animals didn't outcompete humans by doing it and still aren't going anywhere near that : because it's a gigantic waste of ressources that can kill you when not done properly.
If you're not dedicated enough to proper physical exercises, you just gain more and more fat and the extra efforts required for every little move you do eventualy kill you of exhaustion. With the wrong diet, the body doesn't strenghten properly and you die.
Then who would do that? People who want to rise to the top and people who really want to punch through brick walls.

So in entire span of vertebrate evolution, no other species evolved around exploiting this "one weird trick"? Convenient.

And if it's so tricky to take advantage of it... how did it ever actually evolve in the first place?

Barely. Food is in a state of massive surproduction. Just like in the real world.

So you've skipped the 99% of human history where food wasn't in superproduction.

The demand for food barely changed. Neither did the production. The problem you envision simply doesn't happen.

Why not? If there's a known way to become physically superior, and these individuals are clearly going to dominate, why aren't more people trying to do it? Why no added demand? And if they're all demanding as much food as it takes to maintain that superhuman physique, where's the food coming from?

Of course not. It doesn't mean there isn't money in the new big markets, but if you think food is in those you're sorely mistaken.
Hyperdensity materials and artificial nutritional supplements. Those are the new things needed to support the few world record holders who sink in dirt and can't survive on normal meat.

Well, the "more valuable than gold" question was based on my mistake of not realizing you'd quietly change the context to one with a lower bar.

[Cazero]

Ah, so you decided to change the context silently, from the fantasy-esque settings that had been under discussion to the "anything goes" modern-esque setting of comicbook superheroes, in order to lower the bar to the "Worldbuilding? What's worldbuilding?" level of said genre.

I did what now? I really don't understand your complaint here. What's that thing about lowering a standard?
I imagined a coherent world where a perfectly mundane thing that isn't possible in ours is the source of extraordinary individuals rising above the masses. Did I have to write twenty books and five scientific thesis?

That's just restating the "what", it doesn't answer the "how".

So you're asking me to know more about an imaginary universe than top scientist do about ours. We may have a pretty good idea about the equations but we still barely understand gravity.

What effects does that have? Other than just the convenient one of "allowing" your premise?

None that I can think of.
If you think there must be other effects making my premise incoherent, then by all means, put them to light.

So in entire span of vertebrate evolution, no other species evolved around exploiting this "one weird trick"? Convenient.

In any case, none remained. It's not really stranger than no other species we know of currently having sapience on earth.

And if it's so tricky to take advantage of it... how did it ever actually evolve in the first place?

It's the other way around. Having it is the default. You need to evolve out of it, and you would have followed the extinction of your overeaten food source way before it happens.

So you've skipped the 99% of human history where food wasn't in superproduction.

Considering the base idea require massive food surplus to have a big impact on any given individual... Pretty much, yeah.

Why not? If there's a known way to become physically superior, and these individuals are clearly going to dominate, why aren't more people trying to do it? Why no added demand? And if they're all demanding as much food as it takes to maintain that superhuman physique, where's the food coming from?

Same reasons we kept the concept of ruling nobility around for millenia instead of just going all French Revolution on their asses in ancient Egypt.
But also because the physically "superior" individual need an absurdly wealthy situation to support them and losing that wealthy situation implies death by starvation, so it really isn't desirable to most people.
Hence barely any added demand and your problem still inexistant.

Well, the "more valuable than gold" question was based on my mistake of not realizing you'd quietly change the context to one with a lower bar.

Air is one of the most useful things that exist. We need to breathe it to survive. It ought to have more value than gold and yet it is free.
What was your point about food value rising again?

[Frozen_Feet]

@Mutazoia: you apparently think I'm talking of big mainstream works and their nitpicky fans.

I'm not. I'm talking of actual spe-fi authors who fill magazines with their short stories. Back when I had time to read those, every issue had a story of the kind you now dismiss.

Your argument is starting to look lole what I saw another poster write in the past, about how if you really wanted realism, you'd actually need to handcraft your equipment using medieval authentic methods... and concluding it was insane and no-one does that. Completely ignoring that there's an active group of historical re-enactors who do just that as their hobby.

[Calthropstu]

Low levels:
I am beginning to learn the arcane mysteries that shape the universe and can cast the most vasic of spells. You swing a pointed metal stick. My basic spells are no match.

Lower mid levels:
I can cast lightly powered spells and can maybe avoid your pointed stick.. but if your pointed stick finds me, I am still no match. You still swing a pointed metal stick.

Mid levels:
My magic can start doing some pretty neat stuff. You now need magic items to reach me, but magic items are readilly available. Your pointed stick is a threat, but less of one.

High levels:
I wield the forces of the universe with great precision. You swing a pointed metal stick. I laugh at your pointed metal stick.

I see no reason to change this paradigm.

[Max_Killjoy]

Air is one of the most useful things that exist. We need to breathe it to survive. It ought to have more value than gold and yet it is free.
What was your point about food value rising again?

You're making this too easy.

No one makes air as a product. There's no labor, time, or resource investment in air. No one needs to store, transport, or stock air. No one owns air. There was never a time in history when 90-some% of the population was involved in backbreaking labor to extract air from the environment. Air is, from the perspective of most of human history, an infinite inexhaustible free resource. In a simple supply-demand comparison, any amount of perceived demand was met by a perceived endless supply. Air was the first (perceived) post-scarcity resource.

Compare with food. There are still millions (maybe billions) of people in the present-day real-world who have as one of their critical concerns in life whether they'll be able to afford or find food in the near future. For most of human history, food was a critical and limited resource, involving massive amounts of labor, and facing a yearly cycle of potential disaster. Growing food was THE major economic activity, taxes were often paid in grain or livestock, etc. In any sort of structured society, it was highly likely that the political and economic "elite" had the best access to food. For people who haven't eaten in a week, food can literally more precious than gold, than dignity, than freedom. The Roman Empire lived and died on making sure the masses had food. In a simple supply-demand comparison, for most of human history, demand was always higher than supply.

Now, take your premise of a world in which food is literally superpower fuel, and tell us again how that doesn't change anything -- especially history.


Really, this isn't doctoral dissertation stuff, this is just being familiar with the basics.

[CharonsHelper]

Really, this isn't doctoral dissertation stuff, this is just being familiar with the basics.

Supply & demand is hard! (I'm serious. Look at real world examples - such as how no one realized that flooding Haiti with rice would put the rice farmers there out of business. )

[Cosi]

I see no reason to change this paradigm.

Yeah, because screw people who want to play Fighters at high levels. Why should they have any fun?

What you have described is a character that is gaining levels (the Wizard) and one who is not (the Fighter). You know how you implement that? By not having one character gain levels.

[Cazero]

Now, take your premise of a world in which food is literally superpower fuel, and tell us again how that doesn't change anything.

Food is a literal superpower enabler, not superpower fuel. You also need to train hard, consistently and for the rest of your life, something the vast majority of people on this planet would rather not do since it's a lot of extra work. You're also unlikely to get it by accident.
And if you mess up your diet, you die. Not everyone is an hypernutritionist, especialy not before modern time.
I can even establish that the possibility of growing superstrong wasn't common knowledge for most of human history due to how restrictive the diet and training are. Like for electricity; harnessing the power of Lighting? Witchcraft ! Yet here we are.
Having to rebuy hyperdensity models of all your everyday things for twenty times the price because you constantly break regular ones by accident is also a deterrent for everyone who isn't a multimillionaire.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned another major drawback early on. Something about sinking in dirt. Having to rebuild your home and rethink your lifestyle is only a minor setback when compared to being confined to hyperdensity streets built for the likes of you.


Now why don't you tell me what the major changes I overlooked are and how they make that world incoherent. I'm pretty sure I can do more worldbuilding to erase more problems.

[Calthropstu]

Yeah, because screw people who want to play Fighters at high levels. Why should they have any fun?

What you have described is a character that is gaining levels (the Wizard) and one who is not (the Fighter). You know how you implement that? By not having one character gain levels.

Not at all. The fighter, warrior, barbarian et al are swinging that sword harder, faster, more often... but their paradigm is still, at it's core, swinging a pointed metal stick while the paradigm of spell casters is utilizing the very forces of the universe.

That pointed stick is swung hard enough and fast enough to be a threat to powerful rampaging monsters. But it doesn't threaten a high end spell caster unless under extreme conditions. And I see nothing wrong with that.

[Max_Killjoy]

Supply & demand is hard! (I'm serious. Look at real world examples - such as how no one realized that flooding Haiti with rice would put the rice farmers there out of business. )

So very difficult.

In a world where food is literally superpower fuel, it takes a serious amount of handwavium to brush off considerations and concerns about increased demand versus the relative scarcity of supply through most of human history.

Think about trying to push someone while ice-skating. Once the loads you're working with are large enough -- which depends on how strong the walls, ceilings, floors, etc. are in your setting -- you need the ability to make other objects, such as the floor, or whatever you're holding up, super-strong by touch, while also selectively not doing that for anything you want to break. In other words, the power to strengthen (or lighten) other objects by willing them to be stronger (or lighter). That's either magic, or it's a direct equivalent.

(skipping some stuff between)

Ok, You want my honest advice for this sort of thing?

go into your head, find your nagging inner physicist and beat them brutally with a golf club until they beg for mercy and leave you have fun without needing to jump through meaningless worldbuilding hoops. your the one in control and make all the decisions. not whatever is telling you that you need to follow physics. people convinced themselves just because you put all this work into understanding physics and can apply this work to the game, that you "have" to apply it. that you "have" to hold yourself to it, because you invested so much into it, and can't recognize when to compartmentalize this, when to control yourself and recognize that just because its your interest, doesn't mean its always appropriate for the situation.

I wouldn't consider lesser_minion's comment on the weight and strength of objects that the super-strong character interacts to be a "full physics dissertation". It's more at a "I thought about this for five minutes" level.

because currently the standard in this thread for "put a little more thought into wordbuilding" is "full physics dissertation about every single aspect of reality and how its different." thats ridiculous and no one should be held to that standard. thats strictly "going way above and beyond what is expected of a world-builder" levels of thought. a world-builder is only obligated to build as much as they need to, to make the world work they way they WANT for the focus they desire. Nothing more.

Especially when it comes to gaming where a GM needs to have answers ready combined with a framework to improvise answers from, I'm a firm advocate of the "iceberg principle" -- that 90% of the worldbuilding won't be immediately visible to the players.

When I'm reading setting sections or supplements for RPGs, there's often a sense that there's information missing or unfinished or unsaid, and it's very frustrating. I want to know what it's like for the people who live in that world and those cultures, to have a better sense of what characters would know and think and feel, and that's often not there. Instead, it feels like I'm looking at an old western movie set, with the building facades propped up by boards from behind, their hollowness hidden on film by window curtains, lighting, and camera angles.

[Max_Killjoy]

Food is a literal superpower enabler, not superpower fuel. You also need to train hard, consistently and for the rest of your life, something the vast majority of people on this planet would rather not do since it's a lot of extra work. You're also unlikely to get it by accident.
And if you mess up your diet, you die. Not everyone is an hypernutritionist, especialy not before modern time.
I can even establish that the possibility of growing superstrong wasn't common knowledge for most of human history due to how restrictive the diet and training are. Like for electricity; harnessing the power of Lighting? Witchcraft ! Yet here we are.
Having to rebuy hyperdensity models of all your everyday things for twenty times the price because you constantly break regular ones by accident is also a deterrent for everyone who isn't a multimillionaire.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned another major drawback early on. Something about sinking in dirt. Having to rebuild your home and rethink your lifestyle is only a minor setback when compared to being confined to hyperdensity streets built for the likes of you.


Now why don't you tell me what the major changes I overlooked are and how they make that world incoherent. I'm pretty sure I can do more worldbuilding to erase more problems.

You're already blowing off a major issue because it's inconvenient, I don't expect any more than that level of effort.

[Max_Killjoy]

Low levels:
I am beginning to learn the arcane mysteries that shape the universe and can cast the most vasic of spells. You swing a pointed metal stick. My basic spells are no match.

Lower mid levels:
I can cast lightly powered spells and can maybe avoid your pointed stick.. but if your pointed stick finds me, I am still no match. You still swing a pointed metal stick.

Mid levels:
My magic can start doing some pretty neat stuff. You now need magic items to reach me, but magic items are readilly available. Your pointed stick is a threat, but less of one.

High levels:
I wield the forces of the universe with great precision. You swing a pointed metal stick. I laugh at your pointed metal stick.

I see no reason to change this paradigm.

I do. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But then I'm also looking at the entire concept of levels and classes as part of the problem.

[Cosi]

That pointed stick is swung hard enough and fast enough to be a threat to powerful rampaging monsters. But it doesn't threaten a high end spell caster unless under extreme conditions. And I see nothing wrong with that.

That's stupid. You're asking that anyone who play a sword character only contribute in combat. That's a very obviously bad design, because it fails the basic test of game design -- ensuring that everyone at the table is actually playing the game. If you give some characters abilities that make other characters not matter, that isn't possible.

[Cazero]

You're already blowing off a major issue because it's inconvenient, I don't expect any more than that level of effort.

Say what? I'm restating my starting assertion with more details. The core idea didn't change a bit. It's not my fault you assumed I screwed up.

[Calthropstu]

That's stupid. You're asking that anyone who play a sword character only contribute in combat. That's a very obviously bad design, because it fails the basic test of game design -- ensuring that everyone at the table is actually playing the game. If you give some characters abilities that make other characters not matter, that isn't possible.

Not at all. I wasn't talking about out of combat, I was talking about in combat for both the caster and the martial.
Even out of combat though, the caster is going to have options the martial simply can't because magic, by its very definition, is doing something ordinary people CAN'T.
You are complaining that magic users are doing so many things that fighters can't...
THAT IS MAGIC'S VERY DEFINITION. Wielding magic should be more powerful, because it is literally things no one else can do.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not at all. I wasn't talking about out of combat, I was talking about in combat for both the caster and the martial.
Even out of combat though, the caster is going to have options the martial simply can't because magic, by its very definition, is doing something ordinary people CAN'T.
You are complaining that magic users are doing so many things that fighters can't...
THAT IS MAGIC'S VERY DEFINITION. Wielding magic should be more powerful, because it is literally things no one else can do.

So why require the fighter to be an "ordinary person"? One option to deal with this is to allow all character types access to the extraordinary via concept-appropriate means. You resolve the "guy at the gym" issue by not clinging to the notion that the fighter is "a guy at the gym".

[Cosi]

Not at all. I wasn't talking about out of combat, I was talking about in combat for both the caster and the martial.

So in combat, the Fighter is competent, but the Wizard has way more abilities than the Fighter. So is the Wizard defined as broken, or are his abilities irrelevant?

Even out of combat though, the caster is going to have options the martial simply can't because magic, by its very definition, is doing something ordinary people CAN'T.

20th level characters are not ordinary. If the most powerful martial you can conceive of is an "ordinary person", you do not want martial classes to go to 20th level.

You are complaining that magic users are doing so many things that fighters can't...

I'm complaining that you are demanding that the game not be balanced. That's stupid. It makes the game worse for everyone because of your personal tastes.

[Max_Killjoy]

Say what? I'm restating my starting assertion with more details. The core idea didn't change a bit. It's not my fault you assumed I screwed up.

You still haven't explained even the basics if how your core premise works, you just keep repeating that it does. You haven't given us any idea how human tissue could get so dense that peak performance increases by an order of magnitude or more.

If it walks like a magic duck, and quacks like a magic duck, and looks like a magic duck... it's very probably a magic duck.

Which is fine, I'm not knocking settings that rely on a magical conceit of some kind -- just the impossible notion that you can have everything at once, that you can have your cake and eat it too.

Sanderson does a pretty good job of integrating Allomancy and the other supernatural elements into his Mistborn setting and its history and cultures, and actually following through with it, but he never pretends it's anything other than magic.